SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER & ORS. ETC. versus DR. MEHAR SINGH AND ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1988] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 467 · Decided: 17-08-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. NATARAJAN, S. RANGANATHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

J 
SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER & ORS. ETC. 
A 
v. 
DR. MEHAR SINGH AND ORS. ETC. 
AUGUST 17, 1988 
[S. NATARAJAN ANDS. RANGANATHAN, JJ.] 
B 
Punjab Municipal Act, 1939: Section 244-Challenging the Con-
stitutional validity of section 244-Guidelines discernible in section 241 to 
be read into section 244-Whether provisions of section 244 are ultra 
vires Article 14 of the Constitution. 
Certain areas in Punjab State were constituted as notified areas. 
An area was declared a 'notified area' by notification under s. 241 of the 
Act. The Government nominated members, issued the necessary enabl-
ing notifications under s. 242 and appointed a notified area committee 
consisting of certain persons. Later, the Government issued a notifica-
tion under s. 244, cancelling the earlier notification under s. 241. 
Writ Petitions were filed in the High Court by tbe office-bearers of 
the notified area committees challenging the constitutional validity of s. 
244. The challenge was sustained by the High Court, leading to the 
appeals in this Court. 
Before the High Court, bare proposition of law was urged that s. 
244 violated Art. 14 of the Constitution for the reason that it gave an 
arbitrary and unguided power to the State Government to cancel a 
notification issued under s. 241 without specifying/indicating the 
guidelines or the principles on the basis of which such cancellation could 
c 
D 
E 
be effected. 
F 
Allowing the appeals, the Court, 
HELD: The preliminary objection raised by the appellants to the 
locus standi of the members of the notified area committees to pursue 
the matter was not tenable. As a result of the notification, the rights of 
G 
the members under the statute had been taken away, and they were 
entitled to come to the Court impugning the notifications which affected 
them. Merely because they had ceased to be members of the notified 
area committees, their locus standi to ventilate their grievance was not 
affected. [473D, G] 
H 
467 
A 
B 
c 
468 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1988] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 
Section 244, by itself, does not in express words spell out the 
circumstances in which a notification issued under s. 241 or an order 
under s. 242 may be cancelled or modified, buts. 244 should not be read 
or construed in isolation from the rest of the Chapter dealing with this 
subject-matter. The whole purpose of notifying areas under Chapter 
XIII of the Act is to grant a degree of self autonomy to an area which is 
comprised in a village. [ 477H; 478A] 
As and when the economy of a particular area develops, the 
State Government should see to it that arrangements for its adminis· 
tration also improve and provide for more efficient local administra· 
tion. [478G-H] 
The provisions that notified area will exercise only such powers as 
are entrusted to it by the State Government under s. 242 and that only 
such provisions of the Act as the State Government considers tit can be 
applicable to a notified area, show that the_principal consideration was 
the economic and administrative viability of the particular unit to look 
D 
after its own local affairs. If the area develops further and proves viable 
and self-sufficient economically and efficient administratively, it may 
be eventually converted into a municipal area. If the area is not finan-
cially solvent or is administratively weak, the status quo ante may have 
to be restored. [479B-C] 
· 
E 
Section 244 is intended as a power enabling the Government to go 
forward or backward in the process of this evolution depending upon 
the circumstances of each case. It may turn out that a particular area is 
not economically viable and the uotitication issued under s. 241 has to 
be cancelled. [279D] 
F 
The situations, in which a cancellation or modification of a notifi. 
cation under s. 241 may be called for, will be numerous and impossible 
to be spelt out in a statutory provision. The power of cancellation or 
[ 
modifitation is not an arbitrary and unguided one but is one intended to 
be exercised in the light .of the implementation of the notification in a 
particular local area baving regard to the main principle and purpose 
G behinds. 241. [279E-G] 
There are sufficient guidelines or indications available in the Sta· 
tote as to the circumstances in which the power can be invoked. It could 
not be said to be a naked and arbitrary power. Section 244 contains 
sufficient guidelines to act thereunder and it was not possible to accept 
H the plea that s. 244 i

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.